• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Q-6 Fighter/Bomber aircraft

rousseau

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
315
Reaction score
9
The Q-6(A-6) fightingbomber was supposed to replace Q-5 attacker in frontline. The project developed since June 1976, mainly by Xiaopeng Lu, in Nanchang aircraft factory.
Possibly, because of obtaining MiG-23 from Egypt, more airframe designation based on MiG-23 but airintakes and cockpit. The piture show vague notions about what exactly the air-intake is, probably, there are two layouts at least, one is oblong, the other is oval.
The project was cancelled mainly by two reason, one is that swing-wing was too complicated to be imitated simply by few sample, other reason is economic of course.
 

Attachments

  • Q-6.jpg
    Q-6.jpg
    39.8 KB · Views: 1,168

rousseau

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
315
Reaction score
9
No! Matej, when did u see me make any joke at ATS?
If this is just a fake made by PS. How can u explain why we lose series model number between Q-5 and JH-7(Q-7)?
 

Attachments

  • 13-03.jpg
    13-03.jpg
    52.5 KB · Views: 1,126

Deino

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,830
Reaction score
688
Ok, the history of the Q-6 began together with the later JH-7 after the PLAN’s conflict with the former South Vietnamese Navy in 1970 around the Xisha Island, where both the PLAN and the PLAAF felt that they lacked an advanced close air support aircraft, which was better equipped than the Q-5, has a longer range and was useful under all weather at day and night.

As a result the Central Military Commission (CMC) decided, that multirole model for the PLAAF and the PLA-NA should be developed and produced for both services. In 1976 a ‘Request for Proposal’ was sent out to all China’s major aircraft manufacturers, of which Shenyang, Xian and Nanchang gave quite different proposals.
Nanchang Aircraft Manufacturing Factory responded with this Q-6 proposal whilst Xian Aircraft Manufacturing Factory with concepts which later led to the JH-7, followed by Shenyang Aircraft Manufacturing Factory with a ground attack variant of their J-8 (which was later rejected and developed into the J-8B).

Nanchang and Xian then began their respective research and development on their aircraft, which were quite different in layout and main focus of mission.
As China’s only aircraft manufacturer with experience in manufacturing strike and ground attack fighters under the leadership of its chief designer Lu Xiaobing the Chief Designer of the Q-5 work began on the Q-6 with a design study using the aerodynamics and structure of Mikoyan MiG-23 “borrowed” from a MiG-23 which China had acquired during the mid 1970s from Egypt. For refining the design and specifications Lu Xiaobing made numerous visits to the officers of the PLANAF and PLAAF and in February 1979 the finalized design was submitted to the CMC.
The approach from Xian was quite different … but that’s another story !

During its development the Nanchang design team of the Q-6 encountered insurmountable problems with its variable-geometry (VG) wing mechanism. For the Chinese engineers it was impossible to “copy” the original Soviet design, which was at least overweight by 12% and so reducing the aircraft’s payload, range and its combat radius. Also the prototype WS-6 turbofan intended for the Q-6 was not completed in time and tooled up ready for full-scale production. All this led to a complete redesign, which could not be addressed by the Q-6 as it was planed to enter service in its original form. As a result the PLA-NA and the PLAAF turned their attention to the competing design from Xian which later became the JH-7.

It seems that Nanchang tried to propose another new indigenous design, also powered by a single WS-6 turbofan and fitted with a shoulder variable-geometry wing, a chin air intake as shown by the wind tunnel model but again the project was abandoned in the end.

Below attached are a three side drawing of that bird, a better scan of that CG and the wind-tunnel model of the second Q-6 design.


Cheers, Deino ;)
 

Attachments

  • Q-6-3.jpg
    Q-6-3.jpg
    92.3 KB · Views: 1,120
  • Q-6-5.jpg
    Q-6-5.jpg
    62 KB · Views: 991
  • Q-6 concept CG.JPG
    Q-6 concept CG.JPG
    31.6 KB · Views: 990
  • Q-6_J-9-sww-study-3.JPG
    Q-6_J-9-sww-study-3.JPG
    30.5 KB · Views: 326

Matej

Multiuniversal creator
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
2,614
Reaction score
147
Website
www.hitechweb.genezis.eu
rousseau said:
No! Matej, when did u see me make any joke at ATS?
If this is just a fake made by PS. How can u explain why we lose series model number between Q-5 and JH-7(Q-7)?

You did not understand me. I didnt want to wrote that you are wrong or this is fake. I just wanted to write my first impression when I saw this design. Not you but I make the joke ;)
 

frank

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
617
Reaction score
16
Why would they go to a single intake like that? It even looks like an afterthought! It's also so small. It looks smaller than a single side intake of the M-G-23/27. How could the engine even get enough air? I do agree that it looks like the front section of an F-16 mated to the aft section of a MiG-23/27
 

frank

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
617
Reaction score
16
And what might this F-16 - looking creature be?


rousseau said:
No! Matej, when did u see me make any joke at ATS?
If this is just a fake made by PS. How can u explain why we lose series model number between Q-5 and JH-7(Q-7)?
 

Deino

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,830
Reaction score
688
frank said:
Why would they go to a single intake like that? It even looks like an afterthought! It's also so small. It looks smaller than a single side intake of the M-G-23/27. How could the engine even get enough air? I do agree that it looks like the front section of an F-16 mated to the aft section of a MiG-23/27

That may be the biggest problem besides the overweighted VG-mechanism and for my opinion it only proves that all pictures, models or concept drawings don't show how the real Q-6 might have looked like. Not only is the intake much to small; the next problem is how to mate that new front fuselage onto the MiG-23's aft fuselage.

I tried some crude sketches - art was truely not my most favourite topic at school ;D - to explain as on all pictures it looks like being grafted just in front of the airintake ... with some kind of aerodynamical shaping ... and that's it. But that was surely not all !

Maybe You first take a look at my "drawing" !
The first is a front section thru the MiG-23's fuselage just before the wing-gloves and the second slightly behind at the widest point of the fuselage from where on the changes were neccesary.
 

Attachments

  • MiG-23 cut 2.JPG
    MiG-23 cut 2.JPG
    15.5 KB · Views: 79
  • MiG-23 cut.JPG
    MiG-23 cut.JPG
    19.2 KB · Views: 83

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,346
Reaction score
4,143
consealed said:
The Q-6(A-6) fightingbomber was supposed to replace Q-5 attacker in frontline. The project developed since June 1976, mainly by Xiaopeng Lu, in Nanchang aircraft factory.
Possibly, because of obtaining MiG-23 from Egypt, more airframe designation based on MiG-23 but airintakes and cockpit. The piture show vague notions about what exactly the air-intake is, probably, there are two layouts at least, one is oblong, the other is oval.


Yes my country submitted this aircraft to China by that time,and I displayed
before,the early impression to this aircraft,as they designed it in a Fighter
at first (the F-12),also anther art imagine for it.
 

Attachments

  • F-12.jpg
    F-12.jpg
    20.7 KB · Views: 108
  • Q-6.jpg
    Q-6.jpg
    38.9 KB · Views: 153

lion1984

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Deino said:
frank said:
Why would they go to a single intake like that? It even looks like an afterthought! It's also so small. It looks smaller than a single side intake of the M-G-23/27. How could the engine even get enough air? I do agree that it looks like the front section of an F-16 mated to the aft section of a MiG-23/27

That may be the biggest problem besides the overweighted VG-mechanism and for my opinion it only proves that all pictures, models or concept drawings don't show how the real Q-6 might have looked like. Not only is the intake much to small; the next problem is how to mate that new front fuselage onto the MiG-23's aft fuselage.

I tried some crude sketches - art was truely not my most favourite topic at school ;D - to explain as on all pictures it looks like being grafted just in front of the airintake ... with some kind of aerodynamical shaping ... and that's it. But that was surely not all !

Maybe You first take a look at my "drawing" !
The first is a front section thru the MiG-23's fuselage just before the wing-gloves and the second slightly behind at the widest point of the fuselage from where on the changes were neccesary.

Look at this model, MIG23 + J - 8 ii + F - 16, although only a model, but very interesting, as for the details, or for professional designers:)
 

Attachments

  • 215932ppgsps22fs9gsfg5.jpg
    215932ppgsps22fs9gsfg5.jpg
    67.1 KB · Views: 95
  • 2159361v45y8obxvxx2z7e.jpg
    2159361v45y8obxvxx2z7e.jpg
    67.8 KB · Views: 119

Similar threads

Top